Shabbat 28b — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rava of Barnish said:

the hide of an impure animal,

is derived by a kal va-chomer from the feather—

wool

of goats:

For if the feather of goats,

which does not become impure through afflictions,

it nevertheless

causes impurity through the tent of the dead [^

for we derive the impurity of a tent from the Tabernacle, and there the curtains were of goats].

The hide of an impure animal, which becomes impure through afflictions—

is it not certainly the case that it causes impurity through the tent of the dead!?

And we object: Since we include the hide of an impure animal as causing impurity through the tent of the dead,

But then, that which Rav Yosef taught: Only the hide of a pure animal was rendered fit for the service of Heaven—

for what halakhic purpose

did Rav Yosef teach this ruling?

For granted, if we say that the hide of an impure animal does not cause impurity through a tent, this is what Rav Yosef is saying: One cannot learn from the Tabernacle that every hide, even the hide of an impure animal, causes impurity with the impurity of a tent, since only the hide of a pure animal was rendered fit for the service of Heaven of making the Tabernacle, and only it is called a tent.

But now, since we say that the hide of an impure animal also causes impurity with the impurity of a tent, for what matter did Rav Yosef say that only the hide of a pure animal was rendered fit for the service of Heaven? For what was in the Tabernacle was already only the hide of a pure animal. And there is no need for Rav Yosef to come and teach us what existed in the past, if there is no practical halakhic teaching in this now?

And we answer: This statement of Rav Yosef

for the matter of

the matter of

tefillin

was stated. For one must write the sections of the tefillin on the hide of a pure animal.

And we wonder: What is his novelty regarding

tefillin!?

But

it is explicitly written concerning them, “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth”—

and we expound:

from

a thing

that is permitted in your mouth!

And from here you can learn that they were rendered fit to be written only on the hide of a pure animal.

Rather,

when Rav Yosef’s statement is needed—

for their hides.

For the compartments of the sections of the tefillin. Those cannot be excluded from “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth,” for in the compartments themselves “Torah” is not written, but only in the sections placed inside them.

And we reject this:

But did Abaye not say: The shin of tefillin,

which must be made on the hide of the compartment of the head-tefillin in the form of a protruding shin from the folds of the hide, one on its right and one on its left—

a law given to Moses at Sinai

is!

In addition, a knot resembling a dalet must be made in the straps of the head-tefillin, and one resembling a yod in the strap of the hand-tefillin, to complete the Name of the Lord.

And since the letter shin of the Name of the Lord is written in the folds of the tefillin, it is obvious that it must be from that which is permitted in your mouth.

Rather,

for this it is needed:

to wrap them,

the sections of the tefillin

with their hair,

of pure animals,

and to sew them,

the compartments

with their sinews.

And we reject this:

This too—

is a law given to Moses at Sinai!

And likewise, this requirement that they be from a pure animal is a law given to Moses at Sinai.

For it was taught in a beraita: Tefillin,

whether of the head or of the hand—the compartments must be

square in their sewing, and the compartments must also be square, and this law

in their stitching, and the compartments themselves must also be square; this law

is a law given to Moses at Sinai

is.

And the sections shall be

wrapped with their hair,

that is, from the species from which the parchment is made, namely, from a pure animal,

and sewn with their sinews.

And since it is a law given to Moses at Sinai, we do not need Rav Yosef’s statement.

Rather, for their straps,

Rav Yosef was needed to teach us that they must be from a pure animal.

And we object:

But did Rav Yitzchak not say: Straps

must be

black—

a law given to Moses at Sinai.

And since the law of the straps is a law given to Moses at Sinai, it stands to reason that the law that they must be made from a pure animal is also a law given to Moses at Sinai, whereas Rav Yosef did not teach this as a law given to Moses at Sinai!?

And we answer:

Granted that they learned

the law that they must be

black.

But that they must be

pure—

did they learn

a law given to Moses at Sinai? Therefore Rav Yosef came to say that only the hide of a pure animal was rendered fit for the service of Heaven.

And since Rav Yosef’s statement was not said concerning the Tabernacle, we still have to know—

what was concluded concerning the tachash that existed in the days of Moses?

Rabbi Ela said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Rabbi Meir used to say: The tachash that existed in the days of Moses—

was a creature of its own kind.

And the Sages did not decide whether it is a species of wild animal,

or whether it is a species of domesticated animal.

And

And that tachash,

had one horn on its forehead.

And for a brief time it happened to be available to Moses, and he made the Tabernacle from it, and

And for the moment it came to Moses’ occasion, and he made the Tabernacle from it, and

afterward it was hidden

and no longer exists.

And we say:

Since he says, “It had one horn on its forehead”—

infer from it

that it was a species

of a pure animal.

For Rabbi Yehuda said: The ox that Adam the first man offered—

had one horn on its forehead.

As it is stated: [Tehillim 69]

“And it shall please

my praise

the Lord—

more than

“than an ox, a bull, horned and hoofed” [^

which has large horns and broad hooves, which is handsome in appearance and fleshy. Metzudot there].

And we object: But

“horned”—

two

horns

it implies,

for ordinarily “horned,” said concerning an ox’s horn, refers to all its horns and not only to one of them; and how did you say that it had only one horn?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzchak said: “From a horn” is written,

with the yod missing, whose meaning is one horn.

And we ask:

and let us resolve from it,

since Adam the first man offered an ox with one horn and called it “an ox, a bull,” infer from it

that

that the tachash, which has only one horn—

is a species of domesticated animal,

for only among domesticated animals do we find that they can have only one horn, and not among wild animals!?

And we answer:

Since there is the “keresh,” which is a species of wild animal and has only one horn, it can be said

that the tachash

is a species of wild animal.

Mishna:

A wick of cloth,

a piece of cloth,

which one folded

and made into a wick,

and did not singe it

in fire, so that he did not scorch it in order that it burn well .

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is impure

with regard to the law of impurity of vessels, for a garment is a vessel, and the folding does not remove from it the status of a garment [since he did not singe it].

And one does not light with it

a Shabbat lamp, and its reason is explained below.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is pure,

and the designation of garment for receiving impurity has been nullified from it.

And one lights with it

a Shabbat lamp.

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning it:

Granted, with regard to

receiving

impurity, in this they disagree,

the tannaitic authorities of the Mishna:

For Rabbi Eliezer holds: Folding

the wick

is not effective

to remove from it the status of a garment.

And in its original status,

in which it had the law of a garment,

it remains.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: Folding

the wick

is effective, and it completely nullifies

the designation of garment from it.

But with regard to lighting,

whether it is permitted to light with it—

in what do they disagree?

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav Oshaya, and likewise Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here,

in the Mishna:

A.

We are dealing with

in a garment that is

three by three

fingerbreadths

we are dealing with exact measurements.

B.

And we are dealing with a Festival that occurs on the eve of Shabbat,

on which the law of muktzeh applies.

C.

And everyone holds

this

of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: One kindles

the oven on a Festival

with whole vessels,

that are intact,

but one does not kindle with broken vessels

that broke on the Festival, because they are “newly created.” For at the beginning of the Festival they were whole vessels, and only on the Festival did the state in which they became broken vessels “come into being”; therefore they are forbidden to be moved by the law of muktzeh [even though an ordinary log of wood is permitted to be moved for kindling] .

D.

And everyone holds

this

of Ulla.

For Ulla said: One who lights

a Shabbat lamp—

must light

without removing his hand until the fire has seized

most

of the wick

that emerges

outside the lamp .

And in this they disagree:

Rabbi Eliezer holds: Folding

the garment

is not effective

to nullify its status as a garment.

And since he lit a little of it

and reduced it from its measure [which was exactly three fingerbreadths]—

it has become for him

now

a broken vessel,

for less than three is not a vessel.

And

And from now,

when he lights

with his hands the remainder of the wick so that the fire seizes most of what emerges—

he is lighting with a broken vessel!

And one does not kindle with broken vessels. And this is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer, that one does not light with a wick that he folded and did not singe.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: Folding is effective

to nullify the wick’s status as a garment,

and it has no status of a vessel

at the time of lighting [and we are dealing with one who folded it on the eve of the Festival, for one does not twist a wick on the Festival, Rashi].

And when he lights—

he is merely lighting with wood [^

and this wood already had the status of wood from the eve of the Festival, so the prohibition of broken vessels that broke on the Festival does not apply to it]. And this is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva, that one may light with a wick of cloth that he folded.

Rav Yosef said: This is what I learned,

that I learned from my teachers a Mishna concerning the law of

exactly three by three, but I did not know for what halakhic purpose

it was stated. [For with regard to receiving impurity, if it is more than three, all the more so it becomes impure].

And now I know that this matter was stated with regard to lighting a wick, for it specifically deals with exact measurements, since by lighting it he nullifies its status as a vessel.

And we infer:

And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava explains

and establishes the Mishna

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that one kindles with vessels but does not kindle with broken vessels—

infer from it: He holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And we ask:

But did Rav Adda bar Ahava say so?